To whom are you 'advertising'? People still ignorant enough about rewards and bid bots who bother to look at trending?
An otherwise good post, but yeah, it's not a $200 post in proportion to other posts. That's irrespective of you paying for the upvotes, which really has nothing to do with anyone else on STEEM but you and the bots. Keep telling yourself that it's just advertising, and not a significant reason why STEEM gets a bad rap.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
To people who don't know my blog and who might learn something from discovering and reading it. Irrespective of rewards and bid bots, I want my work to be read as widely as possible. And I know no other way to draw attention to my posts.
No, wait, I could "bait" people in other ways, like the "clickbait" ads you see nowadays even on the websites of reputable journals. How do you propose someone to draw attention to his posts ?
There are many ways to look at it.
I've explored this in an older post: How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bid Bots
So in short, the primary argument FOR is that they generate passive income for some purported bid bot 'investor'? How exactly is that supposed to scale?
You'd prefer to 'bait' people using artificially distorted rewards rather than a catchy title, and that occasionally mentioning it down in the comments, somehow that absolves you of creating the fiction to the casual observer, that you somehow earned the $200?
Just like capitalism. You know, the real world.
Someone offers "work" (or "labor") - this is the content creator. Someone else offers "capital" - this is the passive investor.
Labor + capital = prosperity
Except that the steem economy needs diversification. Just "content and attention" (the "blogging business") is not enough.
We now have games too (Steem Monsters - @steemmonsters, Drug Wars @drugwars, Next Colony @nextcolony, etc), but more diversification is needed.
We used to have "open source software" with Utopian but alas, that business folded.
We have Fundition @fundtion for charity management but I'm not sure it's thriving.
I talked for instance about a marketplace for selling art here: Revisiting Steemland: a fairer and more transparent art market as a new "export".
Another idea is a marketplace for selling unused storage space. A bit like filecoin / storj / sia / bittorrent but with the power of the best cryptoeconomic system, that of steem: Steembit: a decentralized storage marketplace for Steemland
There are a bunch of other ideas for diversification, like @oracle-d for instance.
The more diverse the types of work one can source from Steemland (supposedly better quality or cheaper price than elsewhere), the more attractive the ecosystem is for investors.
This isn't an answer, and neither is the subsequent vacuous mess of platitudes you dumped after it.
I did not intend to "dump a vacuous mess of platitudes". My intention was to talk economy. "Labour + capital = prosperity" is a literary shorthand for a basic macro-economic law (added value).
If I had written instead "mass * velocity = momentum" you probably would not have taken that to be a "vacuous mess of platitudes".
So perhaps the discipline of economics is for you a "vacuous mess of platitudes". Could that be the case ? Perhaps you just don't know enough about economics and it all looks Chinese (or Greek) to you ?
I specifically asked how you expect the bidbot investment thesis would scale. You continue to patronize me with your responses.
What is exactly your concern about "scaling", what do you feel is not scalable, can you elaborate ?
"Scale" in what sense ? Technical ? Or economical ?
If the former, I would need you to clarify your concern because I don't see what is the scalability issue you are concerned about.
If the latter, I think the "bidbot investment" does not NEED to scale - this is what I was referring to when talking about diversification. The "bidbot investment" will stabilize to an equilibrium level that will be reached through market mechanics.
As an illustration, the early bidbots (booster for instance) were distributing 80 - 85% of the bids. Some people saw the opportunity and started offering bidbots that pledged to return 100% of the value of the bids (the rising).
Then even more aggressive offers appeared, such as spydo and tipu which also return (under different form) a part of the curation rewards.
For as long as there is demand for bidbot services, and that demand outstrips supply, there will be people ready to offer those services. If running a bidbot becomes more expensive than the earnings, the operators will need to reduce the payout to investors. If on the other hand the people buying bidbot services would feel that they don't provide enough value for the risk, they will reduce the sums used for bidding (potentially down to zero)
It's a free market (for attention) at work, and it works pretty well.
However, it is fragile - it depends on the aggregate number of eyeballs which the content can reach. This is why steem needs a wider array of services on offer, thus allowing investors to redirect their "steem power" capital to the most profitable opportunity.
Hmm ... you don't give me much gripping surface there ... I don't see how to engage further.
Sorry, as I forgot to leave a comment with my downvote.
The comment would have gone like this:
I agree with @joshman as well as with @smooth that in comparison to the content this post is taking a out of proportion share of the rewardpool.
Wonder what's your argument to downvote my latest post, taking away 95% of my rewards ;).
In my opinion capitalist practise is a bit out of place on a self-governed, de-centralized (as much as possible) platform, but hey, everybody is free to do as they like.
And: No thanks for revenge-downvoting.
Why am I not shocked? ...and now the true colors are shown. I guess a few cents was too much reward for you. I healed it in any case.